PPACA rates in California come in less than expected

Mulligan said:
Sounds like a necessary program. Lets say for simplicity that there are only 2 insurance companies in the exchange with same price scheme. By a quirk, all the unhealthy people sign up with "A", and all healthy people sign up with "B". For the first couple years in essence, Company "B" will have to contribute money back to "A"?
Click to expand...

Good example, and pretty well sums up the purpose of the program.
 
MichaelB said:
Good example, and pretty well sums up the purpose of the program.
Click to expand...

This part of the Act intrigues me and will be interesting to watch play out. After thinking about it, the competition for customers seems as though it could be counter intuitive to the classic model of competition for businesses in relation to their success. In our economy if the company provides a needed product, good service, at a competitive price they generally will enjoy success. In this exchange model, success by providing good service at a competitive price could sway many of the unhealthy people to swarm towards a particular insurance company. A company with cheaper prices, but poorer service or networks may find healthy people looking for cheap premiums to avoid additional cost, even if it is only nominally different in price. The insurance companies in the past I assume bypassed this problem by selecting who they wanted to accept. If a company gets too many unhealthy people early on and provides good service, there would be no reason for them to change providers, but you know the insurance company would hope some would after 2016, or they will be at a price disadvantage due to higher costs. This is just interesting to me, in respect to how this plays out in relation to the classic "business model" and in no way a comment on the healthcare act itself.
 
sheehs1 said:
Well as another posted earlier not only are the rates in CA possibly not cheaper, it looks like they were not comparing apples to apples.

Review & Outlook: ObamaCare Bait and Switch - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

Sheesh, I think we are getting ahead of ourselves discussing premiums. After all it has only been a year, not enough time for over 40% of all Americans surveyed to even know the Act is law of the land. :) Incredible...

Forty-two percent of Americans don’t know that the Affordable Care Act is still in effect, a new Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll shows.
Among those people:
12 percent think Congress got rid of it. (It’s true the Republican-controlled U.S. House has tried literally dozens of times.)
7 percent think the Supreme Court did. (It’s true that both Fox News and CNN wrongly reported that in the minutes after the ruling last summer.)
23 percent said they didn’t know enough to say whether the law existed or not. That’s a record high since KFF began tracking public awareness three years ago.
 
sheehs1 said:
Well as another posted earlier not only are the rates in CA possibly not cheaper, it looks like they were not comparing apples to apples.

Review & Outlook: ObamaCare Bait and Switch - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

A WSJ article from the opinion page with lots of partisan rhetoric, and doesn't really add anything meaningful to the discussion, nationwide or California. Here's an article by Ezra Klein that discusses the same Avik Roy analysis mentioned in the Journal piece.
The shocking truth about Obamacare’s rate shock

There are such huge differences between health care policies today, any analysis that does not account for this is suspect. It may flame the passions but will do little to help people understand the impact or make choices.
 
Mulligan and MichaelB. I ran across this very late last night. Since the thread heading was about "rates, specifically CA rates being less than expected, it seemed appropriate to offer up the link that there are opposing views.

So not sure MichaelB what you mean regarding it not add anything meaningful. Sorry you saw it as partisan. I actually did not, as I see clearly it is not an apples to apples comparison. That is simply a fact.

If nothing else, perhaps they are trying to prepare people for the rate shock that will probably happen. Also, I suppose I am still hoping mine will not be as expensive as I fear it will be. Not holding out much hope on that one.
 
Last edited:
sheehs1 said:
If nothing else, perhaps they are trying to prepare people for the rate shock that will probably happen.
Click to expand...
Putting aside that I've already been living under a system comparable to ACA for almost seven years, I don't fear for such a shock simply because none of the articles advocating fear have yet indicated the vector from which such added cost would come beyond those that are already well-understood (i.e., those which effectively convert the human cost associated with preexisting conditions, exceeding lifetime caps, etc., into financial costs). I'm always suspicious of vagueness in such situations.
 
I think sheehs1 has a good point.

The way I see it, a lot of the arguments are over what we're allowed to argue about.

One side say something like I pay $x for my health insurance and it's going up.

Another side says, you can't compare your old policy with the new one, the new one is so much better!

But I don't need that "much better" policy.

Yes you do! You should be grateful that you have this new policy.

But I was offered a "much better" policy before and chose not to buy it. Now I have no choice.

and so on...
 
mpeirce said:
The way I see it, a lot of the arguments are over what we're allowed to argue about.
Click to expand...
Without saying whether you're wrong or not with regard to whether or not post-ACA is better than pre-ACA drive, how does that matter drive specific decisions about what you can do now? Don't get me wrong: I've got no problem with the qualitative (and arguably pointless) discussion about whether or not post-ACA is better than pre-ACA, and I'll be happy to provide balance whenever the criticisms of ACA come up, but there's really no escaping the reality that neither side of the matter is actionable information.
 
Last edited:
sheehs1 said:
Mulligan and MichaelB. I ran across this very late last night. Since the thread heading was about "rates, specifically CA rates being less than expected, it seemed appropriate to offer up the link that their are opposing views.

So not sure MichaelB what you mean regarding it not add anything meaningful. Sorry you saw it as partisan. I actually did not, as I see clearly it is not an apples to apples comparison. That is simply a fact.

If nothing else, perhaps they are trying to prepare people for the rate shock that will probably happen. Also, I suppose I am still hoping mine will not be as expensive as I fear it will be. Not holding out much hope on that one.
Click to expand...

I was just teasing you Sheehs, as actually I share same concerns. About the time you posted your comment, I was scanning the headlines, and saw that survey. It is amazing to me with all the media availability, that almost half the people still do not no its the law. The rate argument on increases can be spun from all sorts of angles. But in reality it appears to me it is becoming fairly clear, subsidies aside. 1) Younger and middle age people in underwritten policies are going to be paying more 2) People currently stuck in high risk pools will pay less 3) "Blue" states, in general, probably won't notice the premium increases as much as the "Red" states due to the fact of underwriting rules.
But in reality, it all boils down to the individual and what he/she pays now in relation to what it will cost.
 
Mulligan said:
I was just teasing you Sheehs, as actually I share same concerns. About the time you posted your comment, I was scanning the headlines, and saw that survey. It is amazing to me with all the media availability, that almost half the people still do not no its the law. The rate argument on increases can be spun from all sorts of angles. But in reality it appears to me it is becoming fairly clear, subsidies aside. 1) Younger and middle age people in underwritten policies are going to be paying more 2) People currently stuck in high risk pools will pay less 3) "Blue" states, in general, probably won't notice the premium increases as much as the "Red" states due to the fact of underwriting rules.
But in reality, it all boils down to the individual and what he/she pays now in relation to what it will cost.
Click to expand...

I agree Mulligan. Over half the people even if they have heard the term don't know the details. The rates will be what they will be.
I didn't believe the article that CA came in lower than expected as I felt that was truly a political article to ward off the shock of the general public. I could be proven wrong on that but who knows.

It will be interesting to see in the next few months what all of our rates actually are. Hoping others post. I certainly will post mine.
 
mpeirce said:
I think sheehs1 has a good point.

The way I see it, a lot of the arguments are over what we're allowed to argue about.

One side say something like I pay $x for my health insurance and it's going up.

Another side says, you can't compare your old policy with the new one, the new one is so much better!

But I don't need that "much better" policy.

Yes you do! You should be grateful that you have this new policy.

But I was offered a "much better" policy before and chose not to buy it. Now I have no choice.

and so on...
Click to expand...

+1
Yep.
 
Mulligan said:
This part of the Act intrigues me and will be interesting to watch play out. After thinking about it, the competition for customers seems as though it could be counter intuitive to the classic model of competition for businesses in relation to their success. In our economy if the company provides a needed product, good service, at a competitive price they generally will enjoy success. In this exchange model, success by providing good service at a competitive price could sway many of the unhealthy people to swarm towards a particular insurance company. A company with cheaper prices, but poorer service or networks may find healthy people looking for cheap premiums to avoid additional cost, even if it is only nominally different in price. The insurance companies in the past I assume bypassed this problem by selecting who they wanted to accept. If a company gets too many unhealthy people early on and provides good service, there would be no reason for them to change providers, but you know the insurance company would hope some would after 2016, or they will be at a price disadvantage due to higher costs. This is just interesting to me, in respect to how this plays out in relation to the classic "business model" and in no way a comment on the healthcare act itself.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about this myself. It will be rather interesting to see which company people flock towards. It would also be interesting if the companies would post a pie chart of the make up of their customers so customers could decided which company to choose but without a health care designation that would be impossible. With no underwriting there will be no health care "status" levels.
With the way the law is written, I have not one clue how a company can predict whether it will go in the red each year or not. That is counterintuitive to every single business model. Certainly there has to be something that we are not aware of regarding that...wouldn't you think?
 
sheehs1 said:
I agree Mulligan. Over half the people even if they have heard the term don't know the details. The rates will be what they will be.
I didn't believe the article that CA came in lower than expected as I felt that was truly a political article to ward off the shock of the general public. I could be proven wrong on that but who knows.

It will be interesting to see in the next few months what all of our rates actually are. Hoping others post. I certainly will post mine.
Click to expand...

That will make an interesting new thread to start when we finally get there. It will be also interesting to find out who gets their grandfathered plans dropped, and the ones that will allow an extension of their grandfathered plans through next year only. I have a suspicious eye already on insurance companies, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do this: Extend the individual plan through the next year enrollment cycle. Then use this time to aggressively recruit the ones currently in their fold that do not make any health claims.
 
how is household annual income calculated?

I am guessing it is line 37 "adjusted gross income" from 1040 form...but why does it not just say that?
 
It is calculated as modified adjusted gross income. You have to add tax free interest and any portion of social security that is not taxable to your adjusted gross income.
 
Just got dumped by Aetna in CA

This morning we got the letter we've been expecting for a couple of weeks. Aetna is leaving the individual market in CA, so as of the end of 2013, DH and I will not have the coverage we chose nearly 3 years ago.

Exchange, here we come!
 
sheehs1 said:
I agree Mulligan. Over half the people even if they have heard the term don't know the details. The rates will be what they will be.
I didn't believe the article that CA came in lower than expected as I felt that was truly a political article to ward off the shock of the general public. I could be proven wrong on that but who knows.

It will be interesting to see in the next few months what all of our rates actually are. Hoping others post. I certainly will post mine.
Click to expand...

I agree also. As I picked up a prescription this morning, I asked the pharmacy technician what she thought of AHC. Her reply, "we'll, it will have to pass first if it does at all". I proceeded to bring her up to date.
 
RitaR551 said:
I agree also. As I picked up a prescription this morning, I asked the pharmacy technician what she thought of AHC. Her reply, "we'll, it will have to pass first if it does at all". I proceeded to bring her up to date.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Wow, I can't believe a pharmacy technician doesn't realize it was passed years ago, let alone made it through the Supreme Court!
 
Maybe it was just the abbreviation AHC that she was unfamiliar with.
 
audreyh1 said:
Then why would she confidently state that "it will have to pass first if it passes at all?"
Click to expand...

Audrey, based on my experiences dealing with the public, you would be surprised at how little many intelligent, competent people are clueless to anything outside of what
is immediately affecting them in their daily life. That is not even counting the unintelligent... Just a few weeks ago a friend who is in charge of a company was discussing with
me how the healthcare act will have little bearing on their insurance. Then goes into talking about how much money he is going to save my getting his son off his companies policy and buying it through ehealth insurance last month. It never occurred to him that his son will be dumped into the exchange in January and pay more as the "underwritten party" ends December 31.
 
Mulligan said:
Audrey, based on my experiences dealing with the public, you would be surprised at how little many intelligent, competent people are clueless to anything outside of what
is immediately affecting them in their daily life.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I am NOT surprised but see it every day :facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

REWahoo
Changed my Medigap carrier from MoO to Allstate
Replies
8
Views
477
mf15
M
G
ACA in NJ: Reconcile New Jersey Health Plan Savings credits
Replies
0
Views
167
GoneSwimming
G
L
How to approach Expected Inheritance?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
7K
Keim
Keim
M
Any McDonald's Shareholders?
Replies
10
Views
689
MichealKnight
M
R
Factoring opportunity cost into major purchases?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
TickTock
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom